Should 'Singles' be free?

PaulBrewer

As an extension of the 'CD Sales Dive' thread -

Should a new bands single releases be free to the public?

Is there any point in a new band trying to charge for it?

Is it of more value to the band to have it out there free and being listened to than being 'not bought' except for a couple of hundred to their fan base?

PaulBrewer

I see iTunes bebo pages Free Single Saturday is Bloc Party.

11811

I think you should charge for a bands first single,with the effort and cost that goes into making a first single I think band should get something in return.....
Sure these days most people will get to hear you music for free anyway with myspace and all.

seannash

if people want to get it for free they can,so no harm in charging for it.
if people dont want to pay they dont have to

PaulBrewer

But if your Indie Competition is giving it away free , a la Bloc Party, shouldn't you ? .... at least until you've risen up the ranks?

with the effort and cost that goes into making a first single I think band should get something in return

I think it's fair to say that No One can rightly expect to get a financial return from your first release. In fact the vast majority of bands go through their entire recording career without getting out of the red.

The most useful 'something in return' a new band can get, in my opinion, is fans - surely that's the first goal?

tweeky

The competition (Bloc Party's) tracks are paid by a Record Company and all relevant studio/producers/engineers connected with the track have been paid, that surely makes it easier for Bloc Party as the upfront costs are covered and will be a bit of cheap promotion for their (out of)tuneless non melodic wares.
If all young bands give their tracks away free the market will be saturated and folks will lose interest having to trawl through the muck to get the good stuff. If the music is given away free by all unsigned bands who will pay the project studio gearslutz and the commercial studios now the credit union are tightening their reigns?
Every week there is a free CD/Film on the cover of the Sunday papers plus Q/Hot Press etc. It has been proven that only a small percentage watch/listen to these but their success is with the rise in sales an established artist's back catalogue gets with all the TV advertising.

PaulBrewer

Tweeky, you'll probably know this.

What percentage of the 99c iTunes charges for a track can an artist expect to receive?

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

If all young bands give their tracks away free the market will be saturated and folks will lose interest having to trawl through the muck to get the good stuff. If the music is given away free who will pay the project studio gearslutz and the commercial studios?

But , as a rule, and you surely know this well, most tracks generate nothing anyway not EVEN costs?

tweeky

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Tweeky, you'll probably know this.

What percentage of the 99c iTunes charges for a track can an artist expect to receive?

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

That would include 21.5% Vat too?

jtsuited

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

it's bloody extraordinary considering what a band would make on each album with a typical deal with one of the majors.

Welease

I believe (as per Metallica's case against Napster) it's up to the individual bands to decide who and how their material is distributed. For some bands, it might be advantageous to give it away for free, for other's maybe not.
Most bands seem to make it accessible via MySpace etc.. and if you like the track you can pay/download via a legal method, which seems to be the best of both worlds.

Crap answer , but it don't think a single business model would ever suit all bands.

PaulBrewer

It's the MySpace Music Model the best of both worlds?

I believe the US's Myspace music store is now operational so I guess it won't be long before it's over here.

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

I

Crap answer , but it don't think a single business model would ever suit all bands.

Good answer actually!

11811

PaulBrewer wrote: »

But if your Indie Competition is giving it away free , a la Bloc Party, shouldn't you ? .... at least until you've risen up the ranks?



I think it's fair to say that No One can rightly expect to get a financial return from your first release. In fact the vast majority of bands go through their entire recording career without getting out of the red.

The most useful 'something in return' a new band can get, in my opinion, is fans - surely that's the first goal?

yeah, definitely one of the main goals is to attract new fans, but after spending quite a lot of money on making a single, a little money coming back from it helps a bit..
and in fairness selling them from 99cent is practically giving them away!
Would you give free hours away in your studio to attract new customers?

PaulBrewer

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

yeah, definitely one of the main goals is to attract new fans, but after spending quite a lot of money on making a single, a little money coming back from it helps a bit..
and in fairness selling them from 99cent is practically giving them away!

I'm not arguing one way or the other - I've not made up my mind.

I agree 99c is cheap. However it's not FREE. Is a track more or less desirable to a punter if it's free?
If it is more desirable to the public because it's free, is that not the way to go?

Would you give free hours away in your studio to attract new customers?

Yes! and have!

tweeky

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That's probably not too bad, in relation to owning the track yourself.

Best return is too sell an album at a gig for €15 into your hand/account as opposed to iTunes return of €5 after reductions. But it's amazing how many bands don't do it especially as the captive audience has been wooed with drink and tunes.

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

Best return is too sell an album at a gig for €15 into your hand/account as opposed to iTunes return of €5 after reductions. But it's amazing how many bands don't do it especially as the captive audience has been wooed with drink and tunes.

'Hey Man we're the band, we ain't no steenkin' business men - Now where's the wimmins at?'

Even 3 or 4 sales would probably cover the fuel AND the chips ...

11811

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Yes! and have!

Any chance of a few hours then? :pac:

while I understand that giving them out free will get you out to wider audience, it just seems a shame not to get anything back for such an expensive out-lay...
I'd prefer to put on a free show or something...
Also when something is free, the interest in it never seems to be as genuine.
I can see a lot of free CDs ending up as coffee coasters.

PaulBrewer

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

while I understand that giving them out free will get you out to wider audience, it just seems a shame not to get anything back for such an expensive out-lay...

You've just contradicted yourself there ...

jtsuited

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Is a track more or less desirable to a punter if it's free?
!

ya see this is the thing. if only there was a situation where someone gave away their album for whatever amount anyone was willing to pay (including free).

then we'd know a huge amount about the 'average' punter. even if they are Radiohead and the album is In Rainbows, I'm sure you'd still get an accurate picture of how much the consumer reckons music is worth.

I really don't think the answer is free.

Neurojazz

Great idea that giving away a single for free, but this creates a dilemma...

If a record company wanted to sign the act based on that single (to lead the promotion of a possible album) then they may pass as the band has released the source free on the internet - it's very hard to charge for something given away free previously. If a band was after fanbase/freebies then maybe a slightly lower quality release of a live set would be less damaging to a bands *product*.

I can appreciate the frustrations of musicians trying to get on the ladder, a complete nightmare - there are very few creative solutions out there for making income in the music biz.

Free is pretty damaging and devalues what you do.

seannash

there was a similar thread on another forum and someone made the good point of saying that if you dont put a value on your music others wont,meaning stuff that is given away for free,especially by an unknown band,will be view as having less value as something which they have bought and paid for.
if you pay for something your less likely to get rid of it.

PaulBrewer

seannash wrote: »

if you pay for something your less likely to get rid of it.

I agree with that, but just because you haven't doesn't necessarily mean you don't value it - but if an established artist gives it away are you not disadvantaging your works likelihood of succeeding by charging?

Is it just another horrible bitter pill an artist must swallow to get attention?


How many of you who do advocate charging have downloaded P2P copyrighted material I wonder?

PaulBrewer

The Poll is spilt 50/50 on this but the 'Freesayers' aren't as vociferous as the 'Paysayers' .....

I wonder why that is?:cool:

11811

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You've just contradicted yourself there ...

Seems I did, meant getting nothing back in monetary terms!

Good Point Neurojazz, I agree that giving away your music certainly devalues it.

PaulBrewer

Any words from the 'Freesayers' ?

seannash

in all fairness most forms of popular music can be got for free these days.
if a band gets any success it immediately gets hit harder with music piracy.

fitz

Saying you should charge cause it cost you money to produce is nonsense really. If you're only planning based on how to re-coup, you're unlikely to be any way inventive with how you go about promoting your music.
These days, if people want to, they'll get any music they want for free.
Giving something away doesn't mean you have to give everything away. You can't put a value on the goodwill you can generate by making people feel like they've got something for nothing. Exceeding people's expectations is the only way you'll stand out.

If you're in it for the money, the real revenue is in publishing and touring/merchandising. You're not gonna get someone paying you to use your song in a film/ad/tv program without your stuff being heard by the right person. Anything you can do to get your music heard by as many people as possible is worth exploring. You never know who the next listener or casual downloader could be. As for devaluing your work, how much do you think an album is worth? It's totally subjective. The financial value of art is dictated by the demand for it.

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

Saying you should charge cause it cost you money to produce is nonsense really. If you're only planning based on how to re-coup, you're unlikely to be any way inventive with how you go about promoting your music.
These days, if people want to, they'll get any music they want for free.
Giving something away doesn't mean you have to give everything away. You can't put a value on the goodwill you can generate by making people feel like they've got something for nothing. Exceeding people's expectations is the only way you'll stand out.

If you're in it for the money, the real revenue is in publishing and touring/merchandising. You're not gonna get someone paying you to use your song in a film/ad/tv program without your stuff being heard by the right person. Anything you can do to get your music heard by as many people as possible is worth exploring. You never know who the next listener or casual downloader could be. As for devaluing your work, how much do you think an album is worth? It's totally subjective. The financial value of art is dictated by the demand for it.

The Fitz doesn't speak with a forked tongue ...You'd never charge for a Demo would you? Isn't your first single a Demo by another name?

I think I'm leaning towards the Free camp ...

seannash

bit different with people who make dance music as the over heads for making that arent near what it is to record a demo in a studio.
so is it safe to say that everyone who records in a studio,wants to make money on there tracks to some respect,wether it be to recoup the cost or just for personal financial boosting

fitz

My point is, you shouldn't be looking to fund recording from sales of records.
It limits what you can do with the record once you have it done.

11811

But isnt putting out music a business? If your put effort into crafting music for the public to hear I think you're entitled to charge for it.
Its gas, someone will pay 3 euro for a coffee, which takes f-all effort to make,
but wont pay 99 cent to download a single of a new band?
If we keep giving it away for nothing it'll get to a point where your first album will be free... then all of them will have to be..
Where will the music industry be then? will there be any point in putting out singles? theres no money coming from it, might get a few gigs outta it, but sure theres no money in that either...

PaulBrewer

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

?
If we keep giving it away for nothing it'll get to a point where your first album will be free... then all of them will have to be..
Where will the music industry be then? will there be any point in putting out singles? theres no money coming from it, might get a few gigs outta it, but sure theres no money in that either...

Cuddles! You're behind the times - what you've described has practically happened.

Last year was the first year that CD sales dropped behind Live Performance in money terms and as per -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20081128_cdsales.shtml

CD sales are and will continue to be , in my opinion, phucked.

The idea of trying to sell your single is unrealistic in terms of even recouping and EVERYONE comes in at 26 in the charts, a chart no one pays any attention to.

11811

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Cuddles! You're behind the times - what you've described has practically happened.

Last year was the first year that CD sales dropped behind Live Performance in money terms and as per -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20081128_cdsales.shtml

CD sales are and will continue to be , in my opinion, phucked.

The idea of trying to sell your single is unrealistic in terms of even recouping and EVERYONE comes in at 26 in the charts, a chart no one pays any attention to.

What we've a chart?

seriously-

Dont worry, I'm well aware of the state of Cd sales, sure to be honest I can barely remember the last time I bought one..
I'm merely pondering will we get to a stage where all relases will be free?
and if so what will be the implications?

fitz

Cuddleworthy wrote: »

But isnt putting out music a business? If your put effort into crafting music for the public to hear I think you're entitled to charge for it.
Its gas, someone will pay 3 euro for a coffee, which takes f-all effort to make,
but wont pay 99 cent to download a single of a new band?

Of course you're entitled to charge for it. And yes, it's a business, but sometimes, in any business, "you have to speculate to accumulate." You have to take the long term view. Yes, you're not getting money in from the single, but is what you're getting out of giving it away free worth more to you in practical terms, ie. will it bring you closer to success and the income opportunity that presents. Saying you have to immediately recoup any expenses you put into your music is too shortsighted an approach in my opinion.

If we keep giving it away for nothing it'll get to a point where your first album will be free... then all of them will have to be..
Where will the music industry be then? will there be any point in putting out singles? theres no money coming from it, might get a few gigs outta it, but sure theres no money in that either...

I'm not suggesting giving everything away free....
You give the first single away for free. It builds your audience, who are all potential, if not probably, customers for your album. There's more to getting return on your investment in the recording of your music than money coming back in.

son.of.jimi

Hmm... this is a tricky one, but then again I don't think there's a right or wrong way about looking at this at all.

I mean it all boils down to the band and how they've gotten to the point of recording their first single.

I mean you could have a band that are brilliant at live performances and have a strong following who could release theyre single for free because is the performances that are bringing in the cash for them...

And then you could have a band whose performances are terrible but their music is perfect in which case people would be more inclined to buy some of thier material and so the band would choose to charge for their single/ep/album whatever...

In an ideal world we'd get paid for what we love doing without being judged on it...

But then again as has been pointed out there are people out there who would pay €3 for coffee but not 99c for a song so it's still in the hands of the consumer...

af_thefragile

It'ld work amazingly well for an established and popular band like Radiohead, Coldplay n likes.

It might not work too well for new and unsigned bands. They could give away free CD's at their gigs. But i don't think giving off free singles over the internet might or might not work.

A lot of economics going on there.
People feel the free single might not be worth it then (as its for free) and it might end up making the band look cheap. While a single at the normal price for sale on iTunes or something might make the band look upto a certain industry standard.

Gotta keep in focus that a lot of people's views about the music they listen to is not their own views but the views that they have acquired from their friends or fed into by the record label through the media. Especially for the mainstream.
A million euro marketing campaign with 5star reviews from all the top music magazines will make Coldplay sell more than a million copies in the first week of releasing their album.

Whereas the amazingly promising new band from town working hard to promote themselves independently will struggle to even sell 1000 copies of their first album as no major business has made the masses believe that these guys DO sound amazing, buy their album now!

The culture we're living in now days, we always need someone else's confirmation whether something is worth it or not. We can no longer make proper solid decisions and distinctions for ourselves. We need the media to guide us with what we need to do and buy. If we don't follow the media, we'll follow our friends or the people we look upto. We have very little individual taste and likes of ourselves.

So its not how much money you're spending but its more about how and where you're spending your money. Its all bout the right marketing which is a lot more complex than the cheapest product wins cuz a lot of times the cheapest one fails!

af_thefragile

Oh and another big this is buying music off the internet is a big hassle for the majority of the people.
Registering on iTunes is messy and a lot of times you can't play the songs you download off iTunes onto many mp3 players which are not iPods.
Paypal can't quite be trusted either. I've herd many stories of people getting screwed over by paypal.
And then its always good a have a hard copy of something which you can actually hold in your hand. Gives you a much better sense of ownership.

All these things make buying music in HMV a lot more desirable than dowloading stuff off iTunes n such.
And as no one sells singles for 99c in HMV, it brings it to the next step which is what we're all guilty of saying. "Why bother paying when you can rip it off the internet for free!!"
Especially when its something like an iTunes download. Which you can really rip off at similar quality for free. God bless torrents!!





So here's the solution. Either find a way of selling singles in HMV for 99c each.
Or put it up for a decent quality free download (192kbps mp3 maybe?) on the internet and if people really like your music, they can purchase the €3-5 single complete with artwork n all off the internet or in a CD store.

Cuz if people want a free single, you don't have to give it away for free, they'll get it off for free anyway.
And if they don't wanna buy your music but still enjoy it, they can do that quite easily too.
So best way is to be aware of these facts and plan your deals according to these.
Cuz there's another fact that no matter how pricey you sell your music for, your hardcore fans will buy it.

fitz

You've definitely touched on my views there: it's about how you portray yourself and the context in which you're giving something away free.

If you put out a free single, yes, it can look like you don't reckon people will pay. If you put out a free single which people can get from a well designed website with a commercial looking delivery mechanism for the download, you start to build on the downloaders perception of you. If, in addition to that, you get accross that the full album will be available to purchase on iTunes later in the year (better yet on a specific date), you've now put value on what you're giving away for free NOW, cause it won't be free when the album comes out. You can even say that it's only available for free download for 1 month, or 2 months, with the album coming out in 3 months time. Putting a time limit on the giveaway is another way of re-enforcing the sense that people are getting something of value that they wouldn't ordinarily get. You're engaging people as early adopters, and early adopters are the people who will spread the word.

Free now, pay later means that the value of the freebie is the same as, or even greater, to the punter than it's value when it's part of an album.

Neurojazz

I think there are too many scenarios for a clear 'yes' or 'no' in this.

If a band had a great single then money is better spent on professional promotions to the 'buzz charts' and the like followed up with physical and digital releases available through the web. This means that a potential label might approach when the tracks starts getting radio play or appears in the buzz charts that the industry use to watch tracks gain momentum.

For a dance music production there might many different angles that could be taken and dependant on the stage the music is at or the value as a remix...

I'd probably still say giving a single away is business suicide when there are tonnes of creative ways to get peoples attention and get profile rather than giving away the only rights/power you own as a writer which is your music.

For starter bands, you need to get clever and find gimmicks/angles that might grab peoples interest if funds are limited - Don't give away your'e best asset.

fitz

You're not giving away your biggest asset though.
You're giving away a taster of your biggest asset.
The first hit is free, but the next fix costs ya...
It's a valid promotional approach. Look at any software product...stripped down versions given away for free, or for a limited time cause the vendor knows that they'll sell full versions based on the people who like what the free version offers but want more.

You're right though, you need to assess whether you need to go down this route, or whether some clever, focused marketing by a PR company is gonna give you results.

I don't think any way of promoting your music should be dismissed. As I said, you never know who the next listener is going to be, so anything you can do to maximise the number of people hearing your stuff is worth looking at.

af_thefragile

Fitz and Neurojazz have both got it right.

You can't just give away a free single unless you're something big like NIN or Radiohead. If a big band (like NIN or Radiohead) giving away a free single or even a free album comes off as a statement against the industry and makes the band more popular.
If a small band gives away a free single, it'll make the band look cheap and will give off the vibe that "i feel my music is worthless so i'll just give it away for free for anyone who'ld want to bother".


Myspace is internet's most amazing gift to musicians and we should make full use it. Its free and if you've got a friend who's good with html, you can design yourself a very professional looking myspace page. As nowdays every band has a myspace, the only way you can tell a big band from a small band on myspace is through their page's popularity, the quality of their music and the design of the page itself.

Set up a good myspace page n create a fanbase and thats your first step up the ladder.
Then put your single/album on your myspace for listening only. No downloading.
So if anyone wants to listen to your music for free they can simply go to your myspace page, you don't need to give it away for free and look cheap.
Then its best to not release your single until you're sure of following it up with the full album in a couple of months time. Then you can release your single for free without looking cheap as fitz suggested.

Don't just give away your music for free. Cuz as i said before, if people want your music for free, they'll get it off for free easily, you don't need to give it away to them like its worthless!

PaulBrewer

fitz wrote: »

You're not giving away your biggest asset though.
You're giving away a taster of your biggest asset.
The first hit is free, but the next fix costs ya...
It's a valid promotional approach.

I agree.

some clever, focused marketing by a PR company is gonna give you results.

You think recording is expensive? Now THAT shizit cost!!

I don't think any way of promoting your music should be dismissed. As I said, you never know who the next listener is going to be, so anything you can do to maximise the number of people hearing your stuff is worth looking at.

I think the old simple model of ' get a record deal, release a single, become a star' while not impossible (The Squipt for example) is increasingly unlikely.

tweeky

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I agree.

I think the old simple model of ' get a record deal, release a single, become a star' while not impossible (The Squipt for example) is increasingly unlikely.

Not impossible but it took The Script ten years of hard graft, Principle Management, Boyband phase, two record deals, Steve Kipner (Christine Aguilera) & Andrew Frampton's (Natasha Beddingfield/Westlife) Production Company, loads of PR, a good looking singer and last but not least Lemmy from motorrhead's son on Bass and Gtrs to reach stardom. If at first you don't suceed.......

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

Not impossible but it took The Script ten years of hard graft, Principle Management, Boyband phase, two record deals, Steve Kipner (Christine Aguilera) & Andrew Frampton's (Natasha Beddingfield/Westlife) Production Company, loads of PR, a good looking singer and last but not least Lemmy from motorrhead's son on Bass and Gtrs to reach stardom. If at first you don't suceed.......

You forgot to add ' Being Twee' ....

Nah, we'll just stick it in the 'Impossible' column .

jtsuited

tweeky wrote: »

last but not least Lemmy from motorrhead's son on Bass and Gtrs to reach stardom.

really?
didn't know that.

Neurojazz

'Overnight sucess takes about 15 years'

dav nagle

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In fact the vast majority of bands go through their entire recording career without getting out of the red.

Wow that is shocking!

insinkerator

tweeky wrote: »

69 cent tops after apple/credit card, if with a distributer such as RMG or equiv 51 cent. That's if you're on your own label, much less if you're with a major.

as far as i know thats well off. Last i checked (i coud be awfully wrong now) it stands at about 17c per track going directly to the artist. iTunes treatend to shut down the store recently because there was people calling for it to be upped to 21c or something, which woulld make the store commmercially unviable